[HamGateNY] Current NY State DNS Entries

[Brian]

On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 15:45 -0500, Corey Reichle wrote:

> While that may be true, that is neither hither, nor thither regarding
> the NYS network.

NYS in regards to RF falls under the scope of EastNet. It has since the
80's. It is "hither and thither".


> I fail to see what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

I expected such an answer.


> It doesn't need that.  It's desired, due to the "not invented here"
> syndrome that plagues many ham activities.  If the manager of the 44/8
> network is willing to do so, any number of points in the NYS network
> could be bridged over a VPN tunnel into there, and appropriate routing
> decisions made at that point (ie, based on link costing).  Or, two
> designated points in NYS could be the uplink.  Or, none, and for
> example, myself, being close to PA might have a route to the PA
> network via RF, which might have a route to the wider network.
> 
> 
"not invented here"? Who on earth said that? With that said, we're
talking about wire here no? Keep this in mind for future reference.
I *really* don't think you fully understand the ARDC, 44-net, or even
amprgate and it's function. If you want 44/8 to do what YOU wish it to
do, purchase the block! NO IP on 44/8 is OWNED by any single ham! If you
don't like it, buy your own block. In that regard it's very simple.

I also never stated the *only* method of connectivity is ipip, I said
it's the ONLY one that ARCD provides. There's a HUGE difference that
only that of a closed mind would fail to have recognized.

> Of course, this is presuming a modern, link-state routing protocol is
> used, such as OLSR, or OSPF.  Or, even doable with static routing.
> All negating the need for any of this.
> 
Since 99.9% if ISPs filter this, along with IS-IS, how do you propose to
pass this? At this point are you talking wire or RF? Since wire only at
this point was mentioned, I can only assume that... and I wish not to
assume.

> So, it's not introducing 2 points of failure, it's a manner of
> providing multiple, redundant paths.

On EastNet, we use Flex and when applicable prefer 3-way, no hts (hidden
transmitter syndrome) RF links which with Flex, no OSPF etc. is needed.
Flex handles it all on the RF side. I've witnessed IP sockets on path A
fail and re-establish on path B over flex without interruption of the
Layer 7 app in use.

> Again, not pertinent to the discussion here, really.

Absolutely it is. The OpenVPN system directly interfacing amprgate then
becomes the single point of failure for anything behind it. Again, I
expected such a response.

> They use a form of it, yet.  However, the method used by ARDC isn't
> available in COTS hardware, therefore, makes the network more
> difficult to deploy, and scale.

I see "not invented here" to equal "isn't available in COTS hardware" in
principle... and you're also quite incorrect in your above statement.
Features simply may be hidden in the eye-candy GUIs provided such as
ipencap which is in more COTS devices than you may realize.

>   I fail to see how a custom RIP daemon and a niche clear-channel
> tunneling protocol is specifically crafted for amateur usage.  The
> AX25 stack, yes, but that's not what we're discussing here.  We're
> discussing IPv4 routing over RF links.  

Now we're talking RF. Which are we discussing? If we're discussing IPv4
under ax.25 for the purposes of RF, there's other methods available
specific for RF usage... FlexNet being one of them. After all what's key
on RF is the ax.25 layer not the IP header which is under the ax.25
layer. Ripv2 is as useless on RF as would be to send AT&T's OSPF table
via RF.

> There is no "reinventing the wheel" here:  What I'm suggesting is the
> exact opposite:  Stop reinventing the wheel, and use the systems in
> place in the wider IPv4 networking world.
> 
For which medium? amprgate hasn't done a thing in 40 years of it's
existence except upgrade hardware and send more botnet data to UCSD for
examination than it did before (yes amprgate traps botnet and viri data
for examination which it sends to antiviri companies so ipencap helps in
this regard).. so there has NOT been any reinventing the wheel. If you
wish to link to amprgate and the rest of the global internet they
provide a mesh ipencap system. You do not have to talk directly to
amprgate if you wish not to, that's the end user's option.

> We could, and should, learn some lessons from the wider schools here.
> What we're discussing is a mesh network, on a wide scale.  Much like
> Freifunk network (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freifunk).  They did
> not write their own custom routing protocol.  They used an
> off-the-shelf, modern link state routing protocol.  Nodes come and go
> at will, and the network autodiscovers new routes.

This mesh network is 802.11 in nature. You can also look at what's going
on in Florida. There's HamWan and HamLan as well. Nothing new, higher
speeds and ax.25 is NOT even required, however, there are devices which
can handle ipencap on these sort of ham networks quite easily. YO2LOJ
who makes one of the ripv2 daemons also writes a tool for making and
maintaining ipencap within ubiquity gear.

So... which are we discussing now?
wire?
ax.25 RF?
802.11ham RF?

-- 
I find it funny routing engineers are how they are. If part of what they 
do wasn't for my work, they wouldn't have work.

73 de Brian - N1URO
email: (see above)
Web: http://www.n1uro.net/
Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/
Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org
Linux Amateur Radio Services
axMail-Fax & URONode
http://uronode.sourceforge.net
http://axmail.sourceforge.net
AmprNet coordinator for:
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, 
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, and Vermont.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://n2nov.net/pipermail/hamgateny_n2nov.net/attachments/20170130/ed40cbc9/attachment.sig>